What makes Leica special with B & W imagery?

[Trius]

I was going to say that Leica photographers simply care alot about b&w ... then Sweeney came along and blew me right out of the water. 😀

Brian: Albeit a stop slower and a different optical design, I like the look the (older) Elmar gives. Any comments on those?

 

[JoeV]

I continue to maintain that for B/W imaging the lens' quality is of less importance than for color, although excess contrast being a problem with B/W emulsions in harsh light, an older lens can help reduce contrast by a so-called lack of optical quality.

Which gets to the point that the interaction between camera, photographer and subject matter is often of much greater importance than the optical quality of the lens. A. Adams' quip about sharp photos of fuzzy concepts is relevant here. I have personal experience with a variety of cameras, and have noted that some camera bodies seem to work easier with the photographer in the creation of images intended to be B/W. They help maintain one's vision; or at the very least they don't get in the way of the creative process. Monochromatic imagery is intrinsically more abstract than the color-filled scene displayed in an optical viewfinder. So that for a camera body to provide some sort of biased assistance to B/W photography simply means to me that the camera not interfere with the creative visualization that is going on in the photographer's head just prior to making the exposure. These interfering distractions can be operational -- menus and settings and controls and such -- or more in the way the scene is visualized as a projection on a ground glass rather than as a rangefinder display. These concepts are much less certain to quantify than lens MTF charts, and vary between individuals. It's a good thing we have a variety of camera body styles from which to choose from.

~Joe

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"Draw" has a couple of meanings. One is to pull something out of something, as to draw liquid through a straw. I think this is the definition that would be applied to a lens.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The infrared index for the Elmar is at the F5.6 DOF mark, meaning it is not as well corrected for color as the faster lenses.

I'll have to load some B&W into one of my M42 mount SLR's and put the 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromat on it. No correction is needed on this lens for IR or UV.

I'm not stating that other lenses do not make great B&W photographs. I was answering the OP's question of what made a Leitz lens "special". The color correction tends to be higher for Leitz Achromats than those of other manufacturers. That is a special quality.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I agree with you.

 

[Trius]

Brian: Thanks. Looks like I'll need a 'Cron and an Elmar. 😀

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Absolutely! I need to use the Elmar more than I do, but I end up using the Summicron. My Elmar is a post-war coated version -near mint-, came with a Leica IIIF converted from a IIIc. The lens and camera was in a brown paper "grab bag" at a local camera store for $50. In the leather case.

Now THAT was special.

 

[payasam]

Very well, the Leitz lenses (apparently barring the Elmar/s) are special in one respect. Now, does this fact lead automatically to pictures taken with them having some sort of non-specific "special quality"? If we are shown a dozen fine B&W photos, will we be able immediately to identify the Leica ones? My stand is that we cannot do that.

 

[notturtle]

OK, lenses have been covered; its about contrast, aberation, coma, flare etc

The bodies are light tight boxes, sure, but there was an era when Leicas were the only commonly used RFs and this way of working tends to be associated with certain stylistic choices and subject matter. This is part of it - simply what people do or did with Leicas. Now we have the CVs and Zeiss is back, Hexar RFs are still out there etc.

A lot of the contrast issues in B&W are very easily dealt with by altering your processing and to a certain extent film choice. However, high resolution modern lenses with modern films are never going to look much like the oldies. Shoot HP5+ or Foma 200 with your modern lenses and you do take the edge off the modern look and things look older, but dont get rid of it altogether. You can't because the lenses offer more uniform performance now in many ways and it shows. shots are sharper, have more contrast, better edges, less flare, less aberation etc.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I thought a lot about it when we were building digital sensors in the 1980's with custom optics designed just for it, custom electronics, calibration hardware, and spent over a $1M for the data acquisition system.

I wrote the image processing software for it, and a lot of the realtime software to get data onto the computer and RAMTEK image processor. Spent $70K on the graphics hardware alone. You did NOT want to clip the histogram. Using the sensor was expensive.

 

[ChrisN]

Useful article by Mike Johnson, related to this discussion, here; explains Mike's understanding of contrast, microcontrast, resolution, and to some extent how these interact, with a few references to Leica lenses. In particular, Mike's discussion of tonal differentiation in a color scene makes sense when combined with Brian Sweeney's comments at post #20 about correction for chromatic aberration.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Summarit 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the M3.

All photo's are wide-open.

Of the entire roll, this is the only one that I could find that had saturated some pixels. Used Photoshop's Histogram, did not write my own in FORTRAN this time.

This is one of my Favorites with the Summarit:

I hate Prednisone. Glad those days are over.
But the Summarit really caught the tonal range on "Prednisone Cheeks".

Another with the Summarit.

And now the 5005 series Nikkor 5cm F1.4, wide-open on the Nikon S2.

Both images have blown highlights and clipped shadows.

The Nikkor makes a great black and white image, but for radiometric measurements, the Summarit is superior.

>If we are shown a dozen fine B&W photos, will we be able immediately to identify the Leica ones? My stand is that we cannot do that.
You could probably write Software that analyzes the Histogram and Fourier transform to do that. Or at least I used to write that kind of stuff. 25 years ago.

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's not just B&W images, and for sure it's not just Leica lenses. There have been so many generations of Leica lenses, and a few of them are Schneider designs like the Summarit and Super Angulons. I doubt that many, if any, people exist who could go through a a stack of several dozen random prints and and seperate out the ones shot with Leica lenses from the ones shot with Canon or Nikon lenses of similar vintage.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

All they need to do is tie in the door lock control with the airbag sensor. Over-ride the child lock doors upon release of the Air Bag, assuming the electronics survive the crash. They usually do. Maybe I should patent that.

 

[NathanJD]

A lot of people have passed off commenting on the Leica body by simply saying 'it's a light tight box' and therefore can't effect the look of the image but then I feel that an image is not simply made from an exposure. You need no human intervention for that, but to me, the lens connects the scene to the film but the camera body connects the man to the film.

What I’m trying to get at is that perhaps part of that 'B&W Leica Look' is a combination of glass, the kind of person likely to use one, and the ergonomics of the body it's self. sure there are more ergonomic cameras and definitely less so but what Leica have is a complete product that allows those with the inclination to feel comfortable taking the picture with confidence, and to actually make the exposure correctly, and have great glass there poised and ready to record the scene when that feather light button fires off the frame.

Also, the Leica is a tool to learn - you can't wave one around and get a usable picture just like that - you are required to learn your equipment and practise your photography to get good at it and in as much maybe those of us with the inclination to use one generally put more effort into doing so.

It’s mysticism, science, awe and wonder – the stuff that all classics are made of 😀